add_negative_keywords

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly reveals that the tool defaults to a dry-run preview and requires confirm=True to execute, which is a critical safety behavior not obvious from the name or schema. This adds significant transparency, though it does not mention potential side effects like irreversible changes or permission requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise, containing only two sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose and then states the key execution nuance. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the essential behavioral nuance (dry-run) while the schema and output schema handle parameter details and return values. The tool is relatively simple, and the description is sufficient for basic usage. However, it does not mention potential limitations like supported match types or how the preview appears, which could be inferred from schema and output schema but are not explicitly stated. Still, completeness is adequate for the complexity level.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema provides 100% description coverage for all six parameters, including the confirm flag, match_type, and keywords format. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Add negative keywords to a campaign.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_keywords (positive keywords) and remove_negative_keyword. The scope is clear without ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description mentions the dry-run default and confirm=True to execute, which is useful operational guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., add_keywords or remove_negative_keyword), nor does it provide exclusions or contextual triggers. Usage is implied rather than explicitly differentiated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.